◆ SpookStack

Here,totally without any legal reason in law or fact,Appellee judge,recklessly in a rush to judgment to conceal these crim- es of appellees herein,sua sponte ruled the complaints paten- tly insubstantial and dismissed them for want of subject matt- er jurisdiction,Hogans vs.Lauine, 415 US 528 at 436-37,94 S Ct 1372 at 1378-79,39 L Ed 2d 577(1974),From the Complaints them- selves,and the Joint Appendices/evidence in support,no fair minded judge would have considered the complaints without mer- its.Bell vs.Hood 327 US 678 at 682-83,66 S Ct 773 at 776,90 L Ed 939(1946),noting that actions may sometimes be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the federal claim "clearly app- ears to be immaterial and made solely for purpose of obtaining jurisdiction ,or where such claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous." See Boock vs.Shalala, 48 F 3d 348 at 353(8th Cir. 1995),that federal claims,although "clearly meritness",were not so patently frivolous that they failed to confer subject matter jurisdiction. Heakth Cost Controls vs.Skinner, 44 F 3d 535(7th Cir.1995),Holding that subject matter dismissals is proper only where allegations are frivolous.Heitzke vs.Willians, 490 US 319 at 337,n.6,109 S C&é 1827 at 1832 n.6,104 L Ed 2d 338(1989),St.Paul Mercury Indemnity Co.vs-Red cab.,303 US 283, 58 S Ct 586,82 L Ed 845(1938),ruling that dismissal only pro- per where it appears,to a legal certainty,that claim is truly for less than the jurisdiction amount .NLFC, Inc.vs.Deucon Mid- America,Inc., 45 F 3d 231 at 237(7th Cir.1995),cert.Denied___ uS___,115 S Ct 2249,231 L Ed 2d 258(1995),noting that amount in controversy alleged, in good faith,by plaintiff is decisive ~27-